Tags
abolition, allegiance, america, black, candidate, christian, Christianity, democrat, dictators, dismantle, election, government, hate, heaven or hell, lesser of two evils, Love, mccain, moral dilemma, non-participation, obama, office of the president, president, Religion, repent, republican, subvert, tyrants, vote, voting, white
The upcoming election is a perfect example of how life can’t always be boiled down to two sides. Everything is not black or white, heaven or hell, good or evil, democrat or republican, right or wrong, love or hate, McCain or Obama. I am left in a moral quagmire.
Looking at the situation practically, one can vote for the lesser of two evils. It is inevitable that there will be a president after this election. While each candidate has significant and troubling flaws, one could justify voting for that candidate which one finds slightly less odious. This does the least harm to the least people. I was going to write an entire post about this, but this post pretty much summed up everything I was going to say.
But voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for “evil,” if we are to hold to that idiom. One could choose to abstain from voting altogether and refuse to validate the system which permits such “evil.” While a single individual abstention may not make a difference, that doesn’t mean it OK to choose that which one finds morally reprehensible. If the population were to unite against the abolition of such “evil,” then the system would be forced to change.
Non-participation in a system does not seek to subvert the system, but destroy it entirely. But what is the “evil” which we are seeking to destroy? Is it government as an entire establishment? It it the office of the presidency itself? Is it various mindsets and practices which negatively inform our creation of policy?
Should we seek to dismantle the establishment of government? I don’t think so. Humans are social creatures. We instinctively form groups and systems of governance. It seems to be a part of our nature. Therefore it’s not the actual establishment of government which we should seek to dismantle?
Then what of the office of the presidency? I don’t see a problem with such a position. Obviously, it has as much potential for great harm as it does great good, but that is no reason for its abolition. Provided that the office is protected against abuse, tyrants and dictators (through such functions as checks and popular elections), I see no reason to dismantle it.
Then we should seek to dismantle the mindsets and practices which negatively inform our creation of policy. But how does non-participation affect this? It seems to me that if one’s mission is to subvert the system and dismantle those harmful qualities of it, then engaging the system would have a much greater impact than non-participation. I believe that more could be accomplished through lobbying, writing letters, and engaging with politicians than could be by not voting.
I have no allegiance to America’s government. I have no allegiance to America. But my participation in the government does not jeopardize my non-allegiance.
As paraphrased from Dr. Strege, “Vote, then go home and repent.”
Amanti 
Nice essay, Davo. I’ve linked to it in a comment on my post, because I think it’s well worth reading as a follow-up to mine.
I’m not convinced by: Non-participation in a system does not seek to subvert the system, but destroy it entirely.
If I choose not to participate in the two-party system, I’m not convinced that I’m seeking either to subvert or destroy it entirely. When I vote for a third-party candidate, as I normally do, I’m actually seeking to extend or amend a system (democratic voting) that I think works pretty well in theory — although not perfectly.
That’s why I agree with the nub of your argument: It seems to me that if one’s mission is to subvert the system and dismantle those harmful qualities of it, then engaging the system would have a much greater impact than non-participation.
By the way, if Obama wins, you know that I’ll be in the front line of his critics the day after he’s elected. I’ll see you there, too, I’m sure.
I feel I do have an allegiance to America in the sense that it’s my home, it’s the land that I know, it’s where the people I know and love are, and so, if not an allegiance, I’d say I have a responsibility to it. I refuse to shut myself away in a cave and let everyone fend for themselves.
Our days are filled with choices of varying evil. Are you sure your clothes never came from a sweat shop? Was an indigent beaten to provide your coffee or produce. What’s your carbon footprint? Do you care?
Choices in life are rarely perfect. You make do with what’s at hand, and what we have is a crappy system with two parties and two less than ideal candidates, but I think it’s clear which one is further from the ideal, and I think it also clear that abstaining from the process is not only foolish, but could help the lesser ideal guy win. As the Rush song goes, “If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice”
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. Hopefully I can do you the honor of returning the favor.
Ex:
I would agree that your non-participation in a two-party system doesn’t mean that you seek to destroy it. I think you clearly demonstrated that voting third-party subverts the system, which is very good and healthy.
I would still hold that intentional non-participation (as advocated by my several of my Christian anarchist friends, to which this post is a reaction) seeks to destroy, not subvert, the system. You, by voting third-party, are subverting the system, realigning it and shaking all of the stupidity and inhumanity out of it. Subversion is different from destruction.
Oh, and I’ll see you on the front line Nov. 5th.
Philly:
I suppose the difference is our definition of allegiance. I am fully committed to the welfare of my house, neighborhood, city, state, country, and planet. But in my mind allegiance connotes an commitment to a specific community’s welfare at the possible expense of another’s. If “my” country’s actions jeopardize another country’s welfare, my obligation is to speak out against the injustices, not defend “my” country.
Regarding choices and their degrees of evilness, granted not every “right” choices is always realistic. But I do care, and I do try. Any sweatshop clothes are either remnants of my old life or from a thrift store. My preference is always towards fair trade coffee and local produce. Our house recycles twice as much as we throw away. So I’m not perfect, but I do all that I can.
By the way, if you’re interested in that kind of stuff, check out this book: Better World Shopping Guide. It rates a plethora of companies according to human rights, the environment, animal protection, community issues and social justice. It revolutionized the way I shop. It’s not exhaustive, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Great post. I like your thoughts about engaging the system. Too often I take it for granted that I can have freedoms such as writing the government or lobbying. Thanks for the reminder to use them rather than just not participate.